English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent issue of Critical Care, we read with interest the article by Schwenger and colleagues [1] on sustained low-effi ciency dialysis (SLED) versus continuous venovenous hemofi ltration (CVVH) in surgical patients with acute kidney injury. Th e authors have to be congratulated for their eff orts to shed some light on the clinical usefulness of the SLED technology as an alternative to conventional renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities. However, in our opinion, the study has some important limitations: According to the protocol (NCT00322530), the authors aimed to enroll 100 patients per group, a sample size that may be justifi ed only for an anticipated (but unlikely) mortality diff erence of roughly 20%. Th us, the present study is clearly underpowered to detect diff erences in the primary outcome (90-day mortality). Unfortunately, neither baseline pulmonary function nor indications for respiratory support are presented. Th is leaves ample room for speculation that – in such a small population with a high percentage of patients for whom severe pulmonary complications are common – the shorter duration of ventilator support in the SLED group may be related to factors other than the RRT modality.

Sustained low-efficiency dialysis in surgical acute kidney injury - really useful?